Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
543 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2026 74 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2023In his opening brief, counsel for Molina Torres provides the requisite “detailed factual and procedural history of the case, with citations to the record,” State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999), states that he “has found no arguable question of law that is not frivolous,” and asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error. 2018We have considered the issues raised by Martin’s pro per supplemental brief, and we have searched the record for fundamental error.1 See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders, 386 U.S. 738 ; State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 537, ¶ 30 (App. 1999). | 100 | 113 |
Smith v. Robbinsgreen2 sentences2024Prall’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising the court that after searching the entire record, he is unable to identify any arguable question of law and requesting that we independently review the record for fundamental error. 2024McLeod’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising the court that after searching the entire record, he is unable to identify any arguable question of law and requesting that we independently review the record for fundamental error. | 18 | 39 |
Anders v. Californiagreen2 sentences2026Duong’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating counsel searched the record on appeal and “[n]o arguable question of law has been found on any issue.” Counsel requests we review the record for fundamental error. 2026Arias’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising us he found no arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental error. | 16 | 307 |
State v. Richardsongreen2 sentences2017See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 (App. 1993). 2017See State v. Richardson, 175 Ariz. 336, 339 (App. 1993). | 14 | 14 |
State v. Leongreen2 sentences2026Duong’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), stating counsel searched the record on appeal and “[n]o arguable question of law has been found on any issue.” Counsel requests we review the record for fundamental error. 2026Arias’s counsel filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), advising us he found no arguable questions of law and asking us to search the record for fundamental error. | 13 | 287 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1997CONCLUSION We have not reviewed the entire record for fundamental error pursuant to State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 , 910 P.2d 1, 4 (1996). 1997CONCLUSION We have not reviewed the entire record for fundamental error pursuant to State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 459 , 910 P.2d 1, 4 (1996). | 13 | 16 |
State v. Fernandezgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, 554, ¶ 32 (App. 2007) (“Although we do not 5 search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”). 2024“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.” State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, 554, ¶ 32 (App. 2007). ¶5 In State v. Soza, 249 Ariz. 13, 14, ¶ 1 (App. 2020), we held that a “defendant who simultaneously possesses multiple objects of drug paraphernalia commits only one violation” of A.R.S. § 13-3415(A). | 12 | 12 |
State v. Floresgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011). 2021Additionally, during our independent review of the entire record for fundamental error, State v. Flores, 227 Ariz. 509, 512, ¶ 12 (App. 2011), we discovered the superior court erred in the calculation of Wheaton's presentence incarceration credit. | 6 | 6 |
State v. Kempgreen2 sentences1996DISPOSITION We reviewed the record for fundamental error and found none before we decided State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 460 , 910 P.2d 1, 5 (1996) (holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive); see also State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 67 , 912 P.2d 1281, 1296 (1996). 1996DISPOSITION We reviewed the record for fundamental error and found none before we decided State v. Smith, 184 Ariz. 456, 460 , 910 P.2d 1, 5 (1996) (holding that the repeal of A.R.S. § 13-4035 is procedural and not substantive and therefore fully retroactive); see also State v. Kemp, 185 Ariz. 52, 67 , 912 P.2d 1281, 1296 (1996). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2017After reviewing the entire record for fundamental error, see State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19, 24 , 115 P.3d 601, 607-08 (2005), we find no such error. 2017After reviewing the entire record for fundamental error, see State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567-68, ¶¶ 19, 24 , 115 P.3d 601, 607-08 (2005), we find no such error. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2020We need not do so, however, because “[w]hen an advocate’s brief has been filed on behalf of a defendant, we presume that counsel has raised all arguably meritorious issues[.]” State v. Scott, 187 Ariz. 474, 478 (App. 1996). ¶29 Subsection (M)’s language is clear. 2020We need not do so, however, because “[w]hen an advocate’s brief has been filed on behalf of a defendant, we presume that counsel has raised all arguably meritorious issues[.]” State v. Scott, 187 Ariz. 474, 478 (App. 1996). ¶29 Subsection (M)’s language is clear. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Banickigreen2 sentences2018See State v. Banicki, 188 Ariz. 114 , 118 8 STATE v. SOTELO-NAVA Decision of the Court (App. 1997) (“[B]because we are no longer obliged to search the record for fundamental error in non-Anders cases, we decline defendant’s request.”). 2018See State v. Banicki, 188 Ariz. 114 , 118 8 STATE v. SOTELO-NAVA Decision of the Court (App. 1997) (“[B]because we are no longer obliged to search the record for fundamental error in non-Anders cases, we decline defendant’s request.”). | 3 | 3 |
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258green2 sentences2017After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable, non- frivolous question of law, the Juvenile’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 (App. 1989), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. 1994Counsel for the juvenile has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and In the Matter of the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484 , 788 P.2d 1235 (App.1989) requesting this Court to search the record for fundamental error. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Thuesgreen2 sentences2021“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Watson, 248 Ariz. 208, 214, ¶ 17 (App. 2020) (quoting State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2007)). ¶26 “Under Arizona’s sentencing scheme, once a jury implicitly or explicitly finds one aggravating factor, a defendant is exposed to a sentencing range that extends to the maximum punishment available under [Arizona law].” State v. Martinez, 210 Ariz. 578, 584, ¶ 21 (2005); see also Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) (“Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty fo 2020“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error.” State v. Thues, 203 Ariz. 339, 340, ¶ 4 (App. 2007). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Stroudgreen2 sentences2015The state suggests that the underlying offense facilitated or conspired to commit need not be completed for § 13-3417(A) to apply. ¶ 10 In the course of our review, we questioned whether the record contained sufficient evidence that Simmons used a wire or electronic communication to “facilitate” or “conspire to commit” these offenses. § 13-3417(A); see State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”); State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, n. 2 , 103 P.3d 912 , 914 n. 2 (2005) 2015The state suggests that the underlying offense facilitated or conspired to commit need not be completed for § 13-3417(A) to apply. ¶ 10 In the course of our review, we questioned whether the record contained sufficient evidence that Simmons used a wire or electronic communication to “facilitate” or “conspire to commit” these offenses. § 13-3417(A); see State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”); State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, n. 2 , 103 P.3d 912 , 914 n. 2 (2005) | 2 | 2 |
State v. Moreno-Medranored2 sentences2013See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (noting fundamental error argument waived if not asserted); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”). 2013See State v. Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, ¶ 17 , 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App.2008) (noting fundamental error argument waived if not asserted); State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, ¶ 32 , 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App.2007) (“Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it.”). | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Whipplegreen | 2 | 2 |
Penson v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2019Counsel asks this court to search the record for fundamental error. ¶2 This court's review of the record revealed a possible double jeopardy violation, and we ordered briefing pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). 2018Counsel then asked this court to search the record for fundamental error. ¶7 After reviewing the entire record, we requested supplemental briefing under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), about whether the evidence supported Dutra's kidnapping conviction. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Pulliamgreen2 sentences1982Fundamental error is “error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216, 222 , 349 P.2d 781, 785 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977). 1982Fundamental error is “error as goes to the foundation of the case, or which takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense.” State v. Pulliam, 87 Ariz. 216, 222 , 349 P.2d 781, 785 (1960), overruled on other grounds, State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484 , 566 P.2d 285 (1977). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences1979A.R.S. § 13-4035 B; see State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328 , 409 P.2d 35 (1965). 1978We have searched the record for fundamental error, in compliance with A.R.S. § 13-1715.B and such cases as State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328 , 409 P.2d 35 (1965). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences1979A.R.S. § 13-4035 B; see State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328 , 409 P.2d 35 (1965). 1978We have searched the record for fundamental error, in compliance with A.R.S. § 13-1715.B and such cases as State v. Bradley, 99 Ariz. 328 , 409 P.2d 35 (1965). | 1 | 3 |
In re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. DL88-00037green2 sentences2018After searching the entire record, Fernando’s counsel asks this Court to search the record for fundamental error in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and Cochise County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. DL88-00037, 164 Ariz. 417 (App. 1990). 2017This court denied counsel’s motion to allow the Juvenile to file a supplemental brief in accordance with In re Cochise County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. DL88-00037, 164 Ariz. 417, 419-20 (App. 1990). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Schackartgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499 , 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993) (citation omitted). 7 We further note that “insufficiency of the evidence is not a valid ground for [a] challenge to the finding of the grand jury.” State ex rel. 2015See State v. Schackart, 175 Ariz. 494, 499 , 858 P.2d 639, 644 (1993) (citation omitted). 7 We further note that “insufficiency of the evidence is not a valid ground for [a] challenge to the finding of the grand jury.” State ex rel. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Houstongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Sozagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Martinezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Watsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carrigergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blockburger v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Copegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ortegagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chabolla-Hinojosagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huntergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Velozgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Martingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Moodygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robertsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Malloygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burrell
neutral
2 sentences1973FUNDAMENTAL ERROR We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental error as required by § 13-1715 A.R.S., State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233 , 393 P.2d 921 (1964), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 1973FUNDAMENTAL ERROR We have reviewed the entire record for fundamental error as required by § 13-1715 A.R.S., State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233 , 393 P.2d 921 (1964), and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). | 16 | 1965–1973 |
State v. Powell
neutral
2 sentences1995REVOCATION OF PROBATION Defense counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), requesting that this Court search the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. section 18-4035 and State v. Powell, 5 Ariz. App. 51 , 423 P.2d 127 (1967). 1995REVOCATION OF PROBATION Defense counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 , 451 P.2d 878 (1969), requesting that this Court search the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. section 18-4035 and State v. Powell, 5 Ariz. App. 51 , 423 P.2d 127 (1967). | 10 | 1979–1995 |
State v. McGann
green
2 sentences1987We have also reviewed the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4035, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. McGann, 132 Ariz. 296 , 645 P.2d 811 (1982). 1987We have also reviewed the record for fundamental error pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4035, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and State v. McGann, 132 Ariz. 296 , 645 P.2d 811 (1982). | 5 | 1985–1987 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences1980We have examined the record for fundamental error as mandated by A.R.S. § 13-4035 B and such cases as State v. Rose, 121 Ariz. 131 , 589 P.2d 5 (1978). 1980We have examined the record for fundamental error as mandated by A.R.S. § 13-4035 B and such cases as State v. Rose, 121 Ariz. 131 , 589 P.2d 5 (1978). | 4 | 1979–1980 |
State v. Padilla
neutral
2 sentences1966Under these circumstances, we must search the entire record for fundamental error. 13-1715 A.R.S., State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233 , 393 P.2d 921 (1964), State v. Padilla, 2 Ariz.App. 374 , 409 P.2d 90 (1965). 1966Under these circumstances, we must search the entire record for fundamental error. 13-1715 A.R.S., State v. Burrell, 96 Ariz. 233 , 393 P.2d 921 (1964), State v. Padilla, 2 Ariz.App. 374 , 409 P.2d 90 (1965). | 4 | 1966–1966 |
Montgomery v. Sheldon
yellow
2 sentences1995We have reviewed the record for fundamental error as required by Montgomery v. Sheldon, 889 P.2d 614 , 618 n. 5 (1995), and have found none. 1995We have reviewed the record for fundamental error as required by Montgomery v. Sheldon, 181 Ariz. 256 , 260 n. 5, 889 P.2d 614 , 618 n. 5 (1995). | 3 | 1995–1995 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2019Griffiths filed a supplemental brief raising a number of issues, but primarily asserts that his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated when the superior court failed to sua sponte suppress statements Griffiths made during an interview with police. 2015We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 13-4031 (2010), -4033(A)(1) (2010). 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 STATE v. LUDWIG Decision of the Court STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶8 In an Anders appeal, this Court must review the entire record for fundamental error. | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Montgomery v. Sheldon
yellow
2 sentences1996In Montgomery v. Sheldon, 182 Ariz. 118 , 893 P.2d 1281 (1995), our supreme court held that A.R.S. § 13^035 obligated Arizona’s appellate courts to review the entire record for fundamental error when considering a petition for review from the denial of post-conviction relief involving a defendant who either pled guilty or admitted a probation violation. 1996In Montgomery v. Sheldon, 182 Ariz. 118 , 893 P.2d 1281 (1995), our supreme court held that A.R.S. § 13^035 obligated Arizona’s appellate courts to review the entire record for fundamental error when considering a petition for review from the denial of post-conviction relief involving a defendant who either pled guilty or admitted a probation violation. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
| State v. Renforth green | 2 | 1987–1989 |
| State v. Mendiola green | 2 | 1976–1982 |
| State v. Tannahill neutral | 2 | 1966–1966 |
| Hockett v. State neutral | 2 | 1964–1965 |
| State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Brito yellow | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Taylor green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Tapp green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Henley green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Sorrell green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Renforth neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Wagstaff green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| O'Bryan v. Chandler green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Ramirez green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Blazak green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Mena green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Gutierrez green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.